Who is the best all-rounder in world cricket?

[marc71178]

Sorry, has Pietersen averaged over 50 in Tests in the last year then?

 

[social]

Flintoff would get in the England team on his bowling alone for certain, and to be honest, his batting as well would warrant it of late.

Whilst his all-round figures are starting to look good, his batting and bowling, when taken in isolation, are still relatively unimpressive.

 

[social]

Sorry, has Pietersen averaged over 50 in Tests in the last year then?

Interesting discussion on Aus TV yesterday.

Kerry O'Keefe and Geoff Lawson both rated KP far higher as a batsman than Flintoff.

Whilst admitting that KP is unproven at test level, they claimed that Flintoff still had the same technical deficiences evident early in his career.

 

[SJS]

At 52 year old and having not played FC cricket for about 13 years, I doubt he's in the right shape to just waltz back into the cricket world and be the best allrounder in the world. Let's give him 8 months to physically and mentally prepare himself first

I am sure his visually "un"challenged supporters will strongly disagree with you

PS : Since when did superman need any preparation except unbaring his torso

 

[aussie]

Flintoff showed lots of glimpses actually, he was just inept against most spinners and kept trying to hit the ball over the long-off fielder.

yeah he should many little glimpses with the odd shot that illustrated his power & while he was bowling the odd great delivery, but one innings i'll never forget was his 84 againts PAK in Karachi where he just beleted the likes a Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain & Razzaq all over the place

 

[aussie]

Why? If we are going by stats, Kallis's batting average makes Flintoff look embarassing, and kallis also averages less with the ball..

I guess it depends if you care more about form, or career returns..

i'm not sure which one i care about the most, but without doubt currently freddie is the best all-rounder in both form of the game Kallis has transformed form that into a Wolrd Class batsman who just fills in has a good back up bowler

 

[aussie]

Interesting discussion on Aus TV yesterday.

Kerry O'Keefe and Geoff Lawson both rated KP far higher as a batsman than Flintoff.

Whilst admitting that KP is unproven at test level, they claimed that Flintoff still had the same technical deficiences evident early in his career.

KP technical dificiency now is that initially he moves across the off stump and exposes his leg-stump, on memories of Freddie in his early days in international cricket & for Lanchashire i dont think he had similar technical deficiences has KP is showing now.

 

[social]

KP technical dificiency now is that initially he moves across the off stump and exposes his leg-stump, on memories of Freddie in his early days in international cricket & for Lanchashire i dont think he had similar technical deficiences has KP is showing now.

They werent comparing KP to AF from a technical perspective.

They were claiming that Flintoff had not improved all that much as a batsman - something borne out in SA.

 

[aussie]

They werent comparing KP to AF from a technical perspective.

They were claiming that Flintoff had not improved all that much as a batsman - something borne out in SA.

ok well thats true

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, I don't think any realistic person claims Flintoff is a particularly fantastic batsman. He's a good batsman who can be devastating on his day, he is however a very good bowler, and could make England as a bowler alone now, I think.

 

[aussie]

Thats right........... Andrew Flintoff the ENGLISH TALISMAN and England's Ashes hope. an d

 

[Son Of Coco]

This thread should be entitled "Who is the best all-rounder bar Gilchrist" because if we are talking about someone that is proficient in 2 disciplines then it's him first, daylight second, and irrelevelant third.

As far as I'm concerned a wicketkeeper batsman doesn't fall under the tag 'all-rounder'.

 

[Deja moo]

As far as I'm concerned a wicketkeeper batsman doesn't fall under the tag 'all-rounder'.

He certainly doesnt.

If a keeper is an all rounder, so is every decent slip fielder, point fielder, mid fielder, out fielder etc. Simple as that.

What the heck, Nehra might be the only specialist playing the game

 

[social]

He certainly doesnt.

If a keeper is an all rounder, so is every decent slip fielder, point fielder, mid fielder, out fielder etc. Simple as that.

What the heck, Nehra might be the only specialist playing the game

Really.

Dravid = excellent slipper but hopeless wk

WK is a specialist position.

Therefore, if you can keep and bat, you are an all-rounder.

Simple as that.

 

[Deja moo]

Really.

Dravid = excellent slipper but hopeless wk

WK is a specialist position.

Therefore, if you can keep and bat, you are an all-rounder.

Simple as that.

and what makes you so sure that gilly wouldve been an excellent slipper ? Slips is as specialist a position as any. You just cant position some guy there and hope he does the job.

 

[Dasa]

As far as I'm concerned a wicketkeeper batsman doesn't fall under the tag 'all-rounder'.

Also, the general standard for an all-rounder is the player would be able to get in the team on the strength of JUST their bowling or JUST their batting - they don't need both.
I doubt any wicketkeeper-batsmen would be in a team for their 'keeping alone.

 

[honestbharani]

and what makes you so sure that gilly wouldve been an excellent slipper ? Slips is as specialist a position as any. You just cant position some guy there and hope he does the job.

Because you don't need slips every ball. But you need a keeper every ball. A keeper's work is hard as that of any batting allrounder or bowling all rounder. Try doing 540 - 600 sit ups every day, and add about 30 yards of running for about 90 times a day. So, even if no ball actually came to the keeper's hands, he still does a lot of hard work. And then he has to bat at 7 or 6 (with Flower and Sangakkara, they batted at 5) and is expected to score runs. Certainly, there is more than one reason why keepers should be considered all rounders.

 

[social]

Also, the general standard for an all-rounder is the player would be able to get in the team on the strength of JUST their bowling or JUST their batting - they don't need both.
I doubt any wicketkeeper-batsmen would be in a team for their 'keeping alone.

If that were the case, name one all-rounder that meets the criteria.

Flintoff - no, batting not good enough

Kallis - no, bowling not good enough

Vettori - no, batting not good enough

Afridi - no, batting and bowling not consistent enough

etc, etc, etc

 

[Deja moo]

Because you don't need slips every ball. But you need a keeper every ball. A keeper's work is hard as that of any batting allrounder or bowling all rounder. Try doing 540 - 600 sit ups every day, and add about 30 yards of running for about 90 times a day. So, even if no ball actually came to the keeper's hands, he still does a lot of hard work. And then he has to bat at 7 or 6 (with Flower and Sangakkara, they batted at 5) and is expected to score runs. Certainly, there is more than one reason why keepers should be considered all rounders.

You're making this statement ?

Do you think a slipper can just switch off selectively for some balls ? No. Just like the keeper, he needs to concentrate each and every delivery because slip catches do not come announcing themselves beforehand.

Keepers need to bat at 6 or 7? Slippers bat within the top 5. Whats you point?

 

[Zinzan]

Personally if believe Oram has the potential to be the best if his body stays in one piece. He is only about 26 and is intelligent enough and has the skill to fine tune his bowling which has been his weakness of late.


For the moment Flintoff and Pollock are the best test allrounders. Flintoff better with the bat and Pollock better with the ball.